Ask Mike: No such thing as unbiased
Hey Guys,
There used to be just a few places to go for the news. Either you watched your local TV station or read your neighborhood paper. Now, of course, that number has exploded. Anybody with an Internet connection and a blog can report on whatever they want. Still, people like to get their information from proven sources — but that raises an interesting question: Is there such a thing as “unbiased news”?
I stumbled upon a question from Zinergy, who asked for tips in tracking down the news show with the least amount of bias. I attempted to answer this question, but quickly discovered that one person’s bias is another’s stone-cold truth.
As for examples, many people seem to think that Fox News leans to the right, while NBC leans to the left. Maybe so. But, according to a poll conducted in 2008, “more Americans see a media bias to the left than to the right.” OK, but can you trust polls? They can vary wildly based on the sample and the outfit asking the questions. It’s enough to make you want to stick your head in the sand and get all your news from Us Weekly.
As far as I can tell, there really is no one bias-free news source. One’s perception of news is based on his or her beliefs and history. For that reason, I find that some of the best news coverage on the United States comes from sources outside the country. For example, the BBC is an excellent news agency, and, in my opinion anyway, as unbiased as one can reasonably expect. And, of course, there’s always C-SPAN for the hardcore political junkies.
What do you guys think about bias in the news? Do you have a favorite source you go to for the absolute unbiased truth? If so, how do you know you’re getting the real story? Is bias necessarily a bad thing? Please leave a comment and link below.
Thanks for reading,
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Rating:
(35 votes, average: 3.86) - Permalink
- Comments (111)
Loading ...
Subscribe
I agree with you fully, there is no unbiased media outlet.
Unfortunately, there is more “activism” in the past. From the huge amounts of information being created via newer technologies, media outlets are cleverly picking out which stories to cover in order to sway public opinion. (Whether their intentions are subconsious are not, tthey are definitely swaying public opinion)
As everyone has a point of view, almost all news is biased to some extent. However, there is a whole spectrum of “bias”. Some news outlets try to be unbiased, while others clearly and consistently proselytize for their viewpoint. Fox news is the most extreme proselytizer, by far, of the major news outlets. I agree that BBC does at least as well as anyone in being unbiased. Personally, I get most of my important news, and news analyis/opinions, from The Economist magazine.
There will be unbiased news coverage whenever that new species of totally unbiased humans comes out.
A question I would like to know is what makes a person choose to study journalism after knowing its a profession that requires extreme objectivity. (And unfortunately, objectivity is seriously lacking in journalism. )
“…business students didn’t rank as the worst cheaters. That distinction belonged (ahem) to journalism majors, 27% of whom said they cribbed answers”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_06/c3970008.htm
About the BBC, the BBC has admitted its “liberal” bias. Which is unfortunate, since its funded by English taxpayers.
“We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News ”
“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html
“BBC report finds bias within corporation – Telegraph”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554749/BBC-report-finds-bias-within-corporation.html
“BBC viewers angered by its ‘innate liberal bias’ – Telegraph”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554936/BBC-viewers-angered-by-its-innate-liberal-bias.html
Also, a question? Since the FCC licenses TV stations to allow them to use taxpayer owned airwaves, should people who work in the TV industry be required to disclose their campaign fundings ?
“ABC Employees Contributed Overwhelmingly to Obama” ( 33-to-1 Ratio)
http://www.cprights.org/2009/06/interesting-to-notean-analysis-of.php
“Obama gives ABC exclusive access after ABC employees give him massive edge in donations”
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/abc-employees-give-obama-more-donations
Well uhh,all you have to do is watch cbs,nbc,pbs,cnn,abc and you can clearly see they are clearley Liberal biased.All hail Obama!
FOX news is the ONLY news source which gives the viewer BOTH sides of the fence with lively debate and lets the viewr decide for themselves.
i disagree with husker41 i think the most bias is msnbc
I do believe in order to see U.S. News unbiased, you need to watch BBC. I love seeing what they say about American news.
I think that where one finds bias often says more about the observer than the observed.
I think that it is also an interesting tribal phenomenon; there are rabidly faithful news media consumers, somewhat akin to followers of sports teams.
well said Mike
freedom of the press is only true for someone who owns it
yes there is a spectrum of bias
I find BBC and PBS are bias “lite”
also husker 41 i hope you realize the economist is biased as well…..kind of like the WSJ ….it’s biased toward not airing all of wall street’s dirty laundry
the more you realize how biased and full of propoganda most news is the more skeptical one becomes and it’s honestly not the happiest thing to become aware of but most can handle it and shrug it off
Here’s the catch 22 with news, the less biased they are, the drier it is. I have heard that the Wall Street Journal is a credible news source, but it doesn’t have the stimulating zing of a pundit’s opinion.
Well I think I really started noticing it when you see pictures of newsmakers in the media. If they like you, they take flattering shots of you so majestic and knowledgeable. If they don’t like you then you get a picture with you scowling as they took rapid pictures looking for the worst to use.
The news is a joke and pretty much a propaganda machine aimed at the lowest common denominator in their eyes. Because alas you just can’t attain their intelligence and the news must be broken down with catch phrases and cool jee whiz graphics so you can understand it.
An unbiased perspective is possible, but you can’t get anywhere. To truly be unbiased you must have absolutely no beliefs that you don’t have proof for, as these beliefs create bias. However, as mathematicians will know, it is impossible to get anywhere without first making some assumptions. For example, Euclidean geometry is a wide world, but still relies on five basic assumptions.
It goes back to your question, “Is bias necessarily a bad thing?” I say it isn’t. The mainstream media is daily getting bolder about its bias to the left. If a Democrat cheats on his wife, his party will be mentioned in the last paragraph. If a Republican cheats, his party will be mentioned before his name in the headline. The real problem is when the press pretends to be objective and isn’t, which is still,sadly, the case most of the time.
Perhaps honesty about their bias is just what the papers need to prop up floundering sales. When I visited Russia, I found that the citizens knew the bias of each of their newspapers. They would buy more than one each day to get their different viewpoints.
Americans rely too much on the news to do the job of thinking and questioning for them.
You can watch any news, and there will be unasked or unanswered questions.
Most americans aren’t experts on the topics presented by the news, and the news broadcasters aren’t experts on the topics they present.
Americans want to find the news a bit entertaining, and the news wants to make some money presenting it.
All this in mind, Americans need to learn to ask questions and think about what isn’t being asked, answered or presented, and stop relying on the news to do it for us, even if the news doesn’t present it.
This alone would prevent a lot of the problems of misinformation and disinformation and bias that are caused by the media, as well as help hold the media accountable in the realm of public opinion as news sources feel the public pressure to live up to public expectation.
~Matt Millican
Social Scientist & Media Communications Doctor in Training
I have to say that even though Fox is mainly “right wing” they do allow dems to voice their opinion openly on Hannity and O’Reilly moreso than MSNBC where they just babble on endlessly without actual facts and come off as imbeciles with an agenda. It’s always Olbermann with his idiotic and crass comments making a mockery of actual journalism or that loud mouth Matthews leaning over the table like he wants to devour the viewer. As much as I can’t stand over the top conservatism, I despise networks that seem to adore and love what Barney Frank, Biden, Pelosi, and Obama have done to our economy in just a few short months.
yeah, the liberals are trying so damn hard to sell their ideaology for the brain dead, they are suceeding quite well, we are all doomed. watch FOX news folks! people who are right are afraid to speak their minds, satan is responsible for using the liberals against everything that is Godly
The only unbiased sources, of course, are those with which we agree.
If there would be more calm and even-handed debate for us to watch, then maybe we could discover where the middle actually is. Instead, we get shrieking and shouting matches in the interest of escalating ratings.
That being said, I appreciate Charlie Rose and the McLaughlin Group.
It’s really surprising that there isn’t an unbiased news group! You’d think that there would be someone out there that would just say ‘Okay guys, let’s stick to the facts.’ Interesting question.
i dont watch news anymore. Not that i ever did really but now i’ve got a reason
Now, when theres some pressing issue out there causing outrage i tend to stay impartial. Its so much easier. And when there is actually someting out there i want to know more about, I just take information with a grain of salt.
the funny thing is, even the media portrays the media as sleazy, bias, tabloid. They just dont tell you that they are part of it. Perhaps the idea that media is bias is an idea that has been suggested by itself. confused?
I completely agree that there is no un-bias source of media. I think the knowledge of that fact makes all the difference. The stone-cold-truth is for the gullible.
Is there such a thing as “real” news…. sometimes I do not know anymore
I support the left, though I’m leaning to the right.
I have grown increasingly disgruntled and fed up with the media at large… I do not call my self a left liberal or a right conservative but more of a middle of the road… but you would have to be blind to see that the media is majorly into this administrations pocket… that is disheartening to me as it is not really their job… they are molding politics and not reporting about it… basically my thought is the old saying… it is never as good as it seems and is never as bad as it seems… Bush was frustrating but not as horrible as the media made him out to be… he could not take a breath with out a critique… and today I have to look at the Yahoo Front page making sure that everyone knew Obama was not checking out a young girl… who the heck cares… he is just not as good as they are making him out to be…
Bottom line and all that to say… where are the good old Walter Cronkite’s… just report the facts and keep the slant to your self and quit trying to mold politics… we would all be better off if we just stopped playing their game and dropped watching the lot of them until they realized we are not going to come back till they start reporting again and quit making news…
i just did an essay on the news/courts being bias, and i totally got an A! w00t! anywho yeah i totally agree. nothing is unbiased- including facts! (yeah think about that) it depends 100% on the source or the person you hear or get it from. i enjoyed reading this.
It is very difficult to find news that’s completely unbiased because everyone’s opinion is different. The news is important because it provides us with pertinent information and knowledge that may be beneficial to us. However, it’s good to also be objective.
To say that Fox News is the most extreme example of a bias is very shortsighted. They are the punching bag for every other outlet because, let’s face it, they’re the ONLY conservative source. MSNBC is to liberals what Fox News is to conservatives. Either way, the problem is that most Americans are unaware of these biases and are being spoon-fed an agenda. They hate Republicans, but they can’t tell you why. They don’t trust black people, even if they’ve never had a negative encounter with one. It’s scary. Screw the government, the press is the most powerful entity in the world.
This is a little off topic, but the article just reminded me of a situation where the appearance of bias may be better than the appearance of an unbiased report.
In some cases I think that news stations try too hard to avoid bias, but end up giving one side more of a voice than it deserves. The main example I am thinking of is evolution in schools, but there may be other examples. Shows will have evolutionary biologists (or other experts who apply evolutionary theory in their work all the time) on talking about the importance of evolution in modern biology, and then for “good measure” I suppose, they throw in someone with religious affiliations to display an opposition. Such people are rarely, if ever, qualified to speak on the topic, and it seems that they are only there because the show fears not showing “all sides”. The problem is, in some circumstances there is only one side that has any relevance. When talking about science education, it is science that matters.
You’re right, the is no such thing as unbiased — whether in reporting or otherwise. There is, however, covering you personal views to the best of your ability, or, in the case of news reporters, presenting your news in such a way that you don’t really have much room for bias.
For example, CNN has three hours of primetime news coverage dedicated to The Situation Room. The show’s host, Wolf Blitzer, does a pretty good job of preventing his personal views from coming out. He has political contributers on the show to argue their bias points back and forth, and then there’s of course Jack Cafferty, but with the exception of those people, it’s just simply straight-up reporting (which they endlessly replay every ten minutes!)
In fact, CNN only has one true political commentator, Lou Dobbs, who can’t seem to face the fact that he is a conservative, and continually calls himself an “independent”, despite being a registered Republican.
MSNBC and FOX News are, for their part, almost as bias as six-term senators, which means that they are as bias as they want to be, and they deny it and get away with it. Biasness has gone beyond the hours of political commentary they fill their timeslots with, and has seeped into the anchor desk reporting. It is sickening, but is something to be expected from two channels whom focuses on politics 90%+ of the time. CNN tends to do some more “human interest” stories, and they have Larry King, which diverts their airtime away from just politics, which can help make them the less bias of the Big Three.
As far as the commentor above, whom provides links to political commentators who work for network stations, I would remind everyone that employees of news networks are human, like the rest of us, and their personal views don’t necessarily drive their networks reporting one way or another. Plus, 1/2 hour of broadcast news a night does not leave enough time for Charles Gibson to force his political views down anyone’s throat, unlike Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann, whom have a whole hour of JUST political coverage.
You missed the problem mike. The problem is that Main stream news reporters in print or otherwise try to PRETEND they are unbiased. From my experience conservative news folk say right up front they are conservative. They are not ashamed. LIBERAL reporters however, continue to maintain this LIE that they are not.
The news coverage of Obama’s election was pathetic. They guy was an unknown illinois politician. A chicago politician. And he got NO hard ball questions from your ilk that I ever saw. He got a pass.
A news reporter may not be unbiased, but he/she can TRY to present the closest to the truth as possible while admitting their leanings.
Liberals are unable to do this. HAve you ever heard a pro-life activist portrayed as a hero? EVER?
no.. and they fight for unborn reporters who do NOT deserve to be chopped into little bits and pieces.
Oops.. my bias of my love for children shows here.. sorry about that.
The press is bought and paid for. As is Yahoo.
Man Made Global Warming is another great example of how you lying filth reporters cover up and refuse to report what is true.
How many polar bears are there? hmmmm
Screw the main stream media. They are going to go the way of the dodo bird. While Polar Bears Flourish.
I believe that everyone that says FOX is very biased toward the right (As a Republican, I’ll admit it is) Does not see that Almost every other news agency is liberal in its ideology.
If you noticed, almost every station except FOX gave news every time Obama breathed, while neglecting and severely treating John McCain, and focused on the negatives in the John McCain campaign.
News has NEVER been and never CAN be unbiased. This is because PEOPLE have never been and never can be unbiased. The key is to RECOGNIZE the bias in any given story. I personally perfer sources that OPENLY admit their bias. When a source CLAIMS to be unbiased, the question is are they lying to ME, or to themselves?
Would that it was only the mainstream media that is biased. The leftist mentality is also dominant in the entertainment industry, colleges and universities (that ‘groom’ journalists, etc.), and most government agencies – from the Park Service to the National Archives. Anyone that doesn’t tow the line on social and economic issues slanting left remains obscure, or else – if they manage to achieve prominance – are skewered in the mainstream media. It wouldn’t be so troubling if not for the fact that most fail to understand that ‘their personal opinions’ on issues are anything but that, for the media et al creates, drives, and then re-inforces themes for mass distribution. They pick and choose which stories to highlight or not cover, the ‘experts’ discussing the issues, and conclusions that ‘any reasonable person’ would draw from them.
Try NPR. They may sound liberal to the right, and they may sound conservative to the left, but unlike any other news organization in the United States, they’re not commercial, they’re taxpayer funded.
What this means is that any hick congressman from Swamp Hole, Texas, or any weeping congresswoman from the Upper West Side of San Francisco, can call NPR’s editors and management into a committee, make them swear an oath and prove they’re unbiased.
This threat is always hanging over NPR, and if you listen to them enough, you can hear them painfully treading a middle line, and not challenging an interviewee no matter how big a whopper that person just uttered.
It makes a listener mad, whether they’re liberal or conservative, and that’s how you find the center.
In my opinion, it is totally impossible to be unbiased. The best presentation, to avoid bias, is to give all sides of the story. This allows the reader, or viewer, to reach their own conclusions.
One analogy is that we have two eyes, and neither one sees exactly the same view. By combining both, we gain depth perception, and a three dimensional picture.
Another thought is to describe a wall in your kitchen, while a friend, who is outside of the same wall, explains the view from their perspective. Both are true, and while seemingly different, they are both depictions of the same wall. No single picture is complete without the other view.
As a result, I seek as many sources for news, as I am able.
One example is
http://www.mathaba.net/
Another suggestion, is to use Yahoo Alerts, with key word(s).
No. But its all about the ratings and what gets people on the nerves like FOX network
One more example, and this is the least biased, in ‘my’ opinion:
http://www.pbs.org/
Choose Frontline.
I love BBC and Al Jazeera for international news. They have many important and in depth stories that take forever, or never show in US news.
If I had to choose one US news source besides c-span, it would be NPR radio. But NPR can be ridiculously liberal sometimes.
And, yes, the majority of US media is left. That’s what gave Richard Nixon such a hard time. They don’t have ol Dick to kick around in his prime, but I do love his Futurama incarnation.
The US news isn’t really news, but entertainment mostly. Check the jib-jab spoof “That’s what we call the news”
Right.
It has gotten much worse over time.
In the past 50 Years or so, I’ve watched broadcast
news go from ‘information’ to ‘info-tainment’, to
‘enter-mation’, to outright pandering to the agenda
of whatever group controls the outlet in question.
With ‘consolidation’ in broadcasting, these days, you can switch channels in midstream between the
networks and see the same storys, with the same slant, in the same order, and even the same ‘kitten up a tree’ story at the end without missing a beat.
These days, you have to listen, or read news,
the same way you listen to or read advertisements.
You need a “what are they trying to sell me” filter
in place at all times.
The sad thing is you have to go to BBC to find out
what’s happening in your own country, and they’ll
have their own bias to allow for.
For myself, I get unbiased information from both sources, I listen to ‘liberal’ radio and to ‘conservative’ radio and get as much facts as I can on the issue and make up my own mind.
Obviously we are going to have to rely on those sources as we don’t have first person experience. But with information coming from both sides – I can draw my own conclusions on the facts.
I’m left wing and go to Drudge first. Anything he has headlined that I want to know, I read, finding as often as not that he has sensationalized an excerpt as his headline, in context another meaning entirely. Easiest example is this recent Obama picture descending stairs, that you have to see the video to see the truth of.
Then I use his links to everywhere and everybody, most often the wires and BBC. Professional journalists who know objective perspective is the goal are just as much themselves with their own histories, perspectives and passions as the rest of us. Some try, some don’t.
I must always remember, one persons truth is another person’s bias. And it’s important to recognize my own personal bias. Before I start criticizing others.
On a very basic level this comes down to this. Does a given news story this make me feel good, does it agree with my ‘world view‘. Our world view is shaped by many things, such as up bringing, education, social class, values, religion, personal experiences and any number of other factors. News that confirms our world view is much easier to believe than information that opposes or contradicts our personal world view. Those things make us uncomfortable. Being aware of one’s own personal bias, and recognizing it can be very difficult.
It is said that there are two sides to every story and in between lays the truth. This doesn’t mean one person or the other is lying, both people have their own perspective.
If I am standing on the north side of an intersection and see an accident between a red car and a white car. Someone else is standing on the west side of the intersection and sees the same accident, we can both agree that there was an accident. How we describe the accident depends upon how we observed it.
Now here is the problem, as an outside observer, do we accept both accounts of the accident as the truth. Do we consider one source more reliable than the other. Or do we remain skeptical about both accounts.
Even in this simple analogy we can see how a bias can arise. Suppose the red car was a sports car, and the white one was a mid-size family car. Without thinking about it, we might automatically assume the sports car was speeding. We may alternatively assume the driver of the family car was distracted because of children in the car. Both or neither may be true. However we unconsciously view these events through the filter of our ‘world view‘.
This is no different when we read a news story or commentary. If we disagree, we are much more likely to state there is a bias, and there very well may be. If we agree, because it fits in more with our ‘world view’, we are less likely to acknowledge a bias.
Now in the case of a car accident. We can examine damage to the two cars. Maybe make some determinations about speed a velocity if there are any skid marks. Interview the drivers and do another of other things to determine what really happened.
It is not surprising that with the 24-hour news cycle, internet, blogs and so on that we often feel information over load. We don’t have the time, or possibly the inclination, to absorb it all. We cannot, or will not, take the time to investigate for ourselves. We take what we like and leave the rest.
Getting back to my original point about being aware of our personal bias. It’s not always easy. It is easy to disagree with those who threaten our ‘world view’. I would suggest too everyone that any news accounts intended to evoke an emotional response, should be taken with a grain of salt. These things cloud reason. This is easier said than done. Additionally anyone who reputedly states ‘facts’ without evidence, or makes personal attracts to cloud an issue, no doubt has an agenda.
We should realize News organizations are in the business of making money. They market the ‘truth’ to whatever market supports them. If someone wants to decry a ‘bias’ in reporting, they may very well have a good argument. I have my own bias as well. Having acknowledging that, I have a responsibility. A responsibly to gather information to be best of my ability in order to make a rational decision. If a news organization decides to become a propaganda tool, so be it. They will eventually fail because they will views as entertainment, not news.
Mike your right on the money about bias. But what makes my blood boil even more is that most of the media either intentionally lies or misleads you or is just plain stupid. I’m fed up with all of it especially in politics.
Example: Chris Matthews made the statement ” the 60 democrats”, this is either his ignorance or a con to manipulate the public because even though the 2 independent USUALLY caucus with them there are only 58 democrats PERIOD!
And many only give you half the story. That I believe is intentional
There are ways to put a stop to this but I’m not ready to reveal that yet.
I do not believe WE will ever see a news information network called “THE TRUE FACTS” and report just that! This is what Grampa tought me about news. Trust one/fourth of what you read , one/half of what you hear , three/fourths of what you see and wholly in what you believe! Learn to read between the lines, listen closely to the voice , vision through thee opinions and remember who you are!
Matt Millican’s comment is worth rereading. There is too little independent thought in this country nowadays. Anyone who only follows one news channel or news source is, for want of a better word, a fool. In almost any given situation, if you follow an item’s coverage on Fox for example and then follow the same coverage on MSNBC, any reasonably intelligent person will see enough inconsistencies to realize that the truth is probably closer to the middle. At that point, you begin doing your own fact-checking.
It’s OK to support a candidate, a cause, or whatever. It’s not OK to assume that anything reportedly negatively about that candidate or cause is necessarily incorrect. Anytime you hear a ten second soundbite without hearing the entire context, you should be suspicious. It is truly stunning how often when you read or hear the entire statement, you’ll say “Wow, that soundbite was misleading!” This is an old trick and virtually all of the media uses it nowadays.
Both the left and right are guilty. Some individuals such as Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann have mastered this to the point where they can make the complete opposite of the truth sound believable. They know their followers will accept it as gospel without thinking through the inconsistencies themselves. DUH! With that in mind, use your own common sense and learn to probe. Make your own informed decisions. Eventually you will learn to tell what doesn’t smell right or add up and what has the ring of truth. But NEVER accept something just because your favorite pundit says it.
Instead of looking for an unbiased news source, I use a source that ignores bias. RealClearPolitics re-prints stories from the U.S., U.K and occasionally other nations that are clearly biased, but the biased isn’t hidden. My local newspaper is Republican, but that’s fine with me because it makes that slant clear to the reader. Knowing the bias is more important to me that searching fruitlessly for a political story without bias.
My local TV stations are just as bad, but in a different way. They know crime sells so they fill there 1/2 slot with crime stories ignoring other issues.
We forget the media is a business at our own peril.
I liked the line “one person’s bias is another’s stone-cold truth.”
That is a key difficulty in deciding when there is bias. Would we call it “unbiased” for a news agency to insists a terrorist who applauds the attack on the twin towers to be included in any discussion of terrorism? If you want to be literal about “no bias” then how could you not include the terrorists view? But basically any reasoning individual recognizes the horror of what happened that day. And having someone who applauds that horror on the show would be unacceptable.
I know there is no such thing as “unbiased news”
That is why I watch both Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. The only way to get a balanced view is to look at from several vantage point.s
New organaization no longer bring us the News.They are strictly for entertainment. The best they do is to get two people in Diametriclly opposite camps to yell and berate each other. They do not spend time actually researching stories anymore. Two examples are the lead up and reporting on the Iraq War and the Current Actions to combat Global Warming.
This represents the agenda of both right and the Left.
It is well known the failures of the reporting of the Iraq. War. Most of the failures that were the News Organizations responsibilty were they simply didn’t ask the questions. They never followed up and made the people accountable, support their opinions with facts.
The exact same thing is happening with Global warming. The major News organization are simply ignoring the credible naysayers. I am not saying I am 100 percent right but when there are now 30,000 plus Earth Scientist that have signed a petion saying the basic premise of Global warning is wrong, One would think they should get a voice at the table. But organizations like Newsweek and NBC won’t even report basic facts like how New Zealand has had the coldest May on human record. I haven’t seen One News Organization actually show how CO2 can make our atmosphere warmer. They are doing the same thing they did with the Iraq war. In this case Gore is doing the same thing Bush did and say the topic isn’t even up for debate.
In the mid to late 1990′s, Tom Browkaw reported on a survey of people who worked in journalism. The survey asked about their politics. More than half claimed they were liberal. How many more, I don’t remember.
I just don’t see political bias on PBS’ NEWS HOUR. They don’t do the reporting themselves for the most part. They interview people and try to make it from all sides of an issue. Even when the reporters are on location, if they can, they let the people there do the commentary. All they do is ask questions. On the Washing Week in Review, they have journalists from all different kinds of media. The only biased reporting is from liberal Bill Moyers and he makes no bones about it. So you begin from a point and do your own assessment.
You have to look like websites like infowars and prisonplanet to look at the unbiased news.
There is no such thing as an unbiased news source. People in Britain regard the BBC as a propagandist for the lame-duck Labour Party. C-SPAN gives more coverage to beltway insiders than it does to the outsiders (although C-SPAN gives far more coverage to outsiders than the rest of the media).
When people accuse a source of being “biased,” they are usually actually saying that it has a bias other than the “respectable” bias. When people pose as “objective,” they are usually trying to mask their actual bias, which makes it more difficult to evaluate accurately what they are saying. Usually, those hiding their biases have a center-left (Democratic Party in the US) bias.
The great part about the Internet is that it has broken the monopoly of the propagandists of the status quo. Initially, the newspapers were like the “blogs” with an open bias toward one party or another. During the “Progressive” Era (the era when big business took over the government and both political parties), newspapers, facing credibility issues after they had provoked the Spanish-American War with “yellow” journalism, decided that they were suddenly “objective.” Then, the government created the FCC to cartelize the radio and TV industries to restrict access to those mediums (preventing “just anybody” from starting a TV or radio station).
Fortunately, the elitist old media has lost its dominance. Give it another generation and they will no longer be able to anoint a few “acceptable” presidential candidates and rig the elections in their favor. The beginning of the end for them was Fox News, which brought doubt about the “objective” media. The “blogs” are currently in the process of finishing what Fox started.
Personally, I tend to rely upon sources that radically question the status quo. I usually try to ignore what the status quo propagandists (and that includes both Keynesian and Monetarist “economists”) are saying (because they have no answers to our problems other than more of the same failed policies of the past).
After 27 years working for daily newspapers, I could not agree more that objectivity is an unattainable goal.
But I don’t agree that most failures of objectivity are caused by malice by journalists, as claimed by posts on this thread. Sure, it happens, just like some cops go on the take and some high school teachers go to bed with a student. Most don’t, some do. We’re human, we acknowledge that. As I said, perfection is not attainable.
I suggest that more often the problem is ignorance. It is impossible to know everything about everything, so journalists tend to know a bit about a lot of subjects (we usually do well at Trivial Pursuit and TV game shows) but are truly expert in few or none. You’d be the same if you had to write about whale watching, state budget cuts and automobile fuel economy today and lord knows what tomorrow. The adage that says “what you don’t don’t know can’t hurt you” is the biggest lie in the world. What you don’t know always jumps up and bites you in the fanny. Let’s be honest: Haven’t you been hurt or had problems when you didn’t know something you needed to know? Thought so.
At the widest level, all of us are products of life and experience. That’s why journalists make mistakes that can look like bias when they must write about subjects outside their experience. I’ve seen it happen many times. The city kid sent to cover a farm accident, the farm kid sent to cover a meeting on urban planning, the white kid from the ‘burbs covering a drive-by in the hood. Every one is a recipe for mistakes, probably some pretty bad ones.
Please don’t lecture me about hiring people with expertise in agriculture, urban planning and sociology. Even when we have experts — and we do, in numerous important areas — they can’t work 24/7/365, so we send whoever we have. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you report the story with the reporter you have, not the one you wish you had.
Most journalists I know do the best they can and truly try to be fair. I reject the charge of deliberate bias and plead to the lesser charge of being human.
No media is unbiased, but some have less than others, maybe.
However there is a difference between bias and deliberate lying.
Some time ago the History Channel while promoting a series of programs wrote that the world would end in 2012. Lie.
Yahoo is also guilty of promoting this garbage, but as far as I know they did not say it would happen.
Here is a different example, guess from which news network.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOgquSG-vF8
There are plenty of lie factories about, some of them are well known.
everything is subjective or relative if you like, see what I mean?
there is no such thing as “the news”, all we have to go on is an “interpretation of events” by whoever is reporting/writing it.
some news reports are shockingly biased, but they are merely reporting for the audience that they wish to entertain (do not take the word “entertain” too literally please!)
The prime bias I see is the bias toward ratings, money, market share, then, I see a bias toward ideology.
This is a dramatic shift from the pre-cable 3 major news organizations/major print news, and a major shift from to the cable era too. Now, we are in the 24*7 infotainment era devoid of news, critical opinion, analysis, or anything vaguely representing journalism.
Journalism is dead in America.
I believe that Fox News is the most unbiased news station and is the only network I will watch. They do the best job of attempting to show both sides of every story though they are clearly right leaning. Most of the other American news corporations don’t even really report news anymore, in my opinion. They tell you what they want you to believe.
There is no such thing a truly unbiased media source; all of them are biased to a certain extent, some more than others of course. But even the ones that try to bend over backward to be ‘fair’ and ‘impartial’ are not really. In my reading of media from all over the world I have found that generally the media will favor their country for everything, even though they may clearly be in the wrong.
The worst of the media (aside from the government controlled ones in totalitarian countries) are the ones who favor a certain political party or viewpoint. I find the left-wing ones the most biased and prejudicial. That may be because they realize that is what most of their readers or listeners want to hear.
In general, in North America I find that the majority of the media has a very ‘liberal’ politically-correct point of view and it is more concerned about not offending anybody rather than ‘telling it like it is’.
UMM yea there is. Your problem is, your mind is just developing, and having a hard time grasping things. The fact is the media only gives you one possibility, Understand biased this way, If someone tells you only thing, that is biased, However if they give multiple paths that is unbiased. The media today, only gives one path, If i gave you multiple paths, and asked you think for self that is unbiased.
I have found myself reading Aljazeera English whooo old white baptist woman from southern IL has to go to Aljazeera to get news? And I also like the Daily Mail UK..
Very very sad.
I watch Fox and CNN but when I want truth with no spin I go abroad.
Every time someone speaks of unbiased reporting or reporting with integrity, I immediately think of Walter Cronkite. I was lucky enough to have grown up watching him report the evening news. Nowadays, it seems we have celebrity new readers as opposed to journalists.
All statements were well put.Things considered,news is punctuated by advertisements for cars and drugs and magazines.These are the stations bread and butter,at least on the surface.
Not to say that I am part of a group of conspiracy theoreticians,but I’m sure political groups as well as private organizations grease the pockets and sway the course of truth.
CNN has been a relatively stable and neutral source for news.Now that Michael Jackson has died—-I think that Larry King,Anderson Cooper and Jermaine Jackson are working together not only to cover up the scam of michael jackson’s death but to promote preposterous ghost sighting stories.
It is a prime example of how money can buy you the justice you desire in the court room, it can also
also buy you the ability to alter truths in the public eye.
I guess now it becomes increasingly obvious that the new American way is that everyone and everything has a price,and you have to have a discerning mind with evaluating exactly what you believe is truth and not fabrication.
Bias? Everyone in the media making multi million dollars a month are bias. Its just diagonal and full of crap. Because we are brainwashed by other people to think that its crap when it can be good information and opinions for other people. Everyone is brainwashed to do something so everything is bias. No one absolutely no one can not have prejudice if your running the business of the media. Money is going to always win the person’s mind no matter what. I hand you a million you take it and watch my back. Thats insurance and every corporation has that. Bias? Or just prejudice?
there used to be such a thing as unbiased until liberals declared war on America.
We see the enimies of freedom now and they will fall.
The Onion
No, I am not joking. There is great truth in comedy of all sorts. Other than that, not really sure what I would say. Does give me something to think about, but I tend to pull information for facts from a wide variety of other sources to get the entire picture — not sure any of them do that well except maybe {as mentioned} something ‘foreign’ such as BBC.
I think it’s always best for people to research information on their own these days since the news is very biased in one direction or the other. It bothers me that seemingly intelligent people hang onto every word that some newscaster says as though it’s infallible but they are too lazy to find out if it’s actually the truth. Even after someone tells them that the information might not be accurate, they still insist it’s the truth.
well said Mike, can’t agree more.
I’ve always had a strong distaste for news as reported by big corporations such as Fox News and NBC. In this country, the Constitution allows us to hold our own opinions. We are so used to having this freedom. However, the media are abusing this right and are stuffing their agenda down our throats. It’s ironic that Fox News claims to be “Fair and Balanced”; I think “We Report, You Decide” is a much better slogan for the cable network. “Journalists” on both sides of the political spectrum know that they are right, and are hard-liners when it comes to their political ideologies; they fail to realize that their opinions may be subject to change if only they look at the other side in more detail.
Anyway, I like news networks like the BBC and Univision. It’s important to have an outsider-looking-in perspective. When you’re in a country like the United States, China, or Iran watching the national news, there is prone to be more bias, more spin, more propoganda. Certainly, the Chinese will cover the violence in Xinjiang differently than the CBS (Most people in my country probably are unaware of this conflict).
Although no news can be completely unbiased, FOX News is easily better than any of the competition. In a Pew Research Study, they were found to do 50/50 positive/negative coverage of Obama during the campaign. The same went for John McCain.
Try comparing that to MSNBC, who was also polled. 90% favorable coverage for Obama, and ONLY 10% for McCain. That’s outrageous! This is clear evidence that FOX delivers fair and balanced news. No spin.
I know FOX NEWS leans to the right, but I think they make an effort to put left leaning people on and not just make fun of them. MSNBC does have Pat Buchanan on, but most of the time they treat him like a senile old grandpa that everyone thinks is nuts, but pretends to listen to when he is actually paying attention.
Alan Colmes is a committed liberal, and proud of it, and I respect him for that. I rarely see anyone ridiculing him for it on that network. O’Reilly has fun with him, but I get the sense those two like each other while I sense real disdain for Buchanan from Chris Matthews.
I agree with you 100% on the BBC–they’re better than any American news outfit.
I took a journalism class before. The instructor would repeat to us that we should only give cold hard facts not give a our own opioion to the facts. It’s a scary thought our news media is telling us what to think. It make’s me think we are being brainwashed into being zombies. Just look at all the people who never were at the trail of MJ. A lot say he commited the crime just b/c that is what the media wanted them to think.
The only honest news I keep seeing is the local hometown like KTIV Chennal Four Sioux City news not the fancy reports by World News Tonight with Brian Williams or the Today show.
All media is corporate owned, and their political interests lie with the right, not the left.
Look at how many people consider Obama to be liberal. He is not. He is a moderate conservative. If you want to see the media bais, simply look at how well they have managed to convince people that center-right is leftwing extremism, and that fascism is a viable political option for the US.
Also look at the Proposition 8 debate. The media consistently portrays the issue as a pro-same sex vs. pro-traditional marriage. It’s all about the homosexuals threatening the to destroy Christianity! If the media were really liberally-biased, then the issue would be portrayed as a human-rights issue (although it seems to me, that a defense of civil liberties should be at the center of American politics, being something that all Americans cherish, rather than being seen as left-wing extremism).
What we are given in the media is the “bias” is a choice between the extreme right and the right-of-center. It’s biased between the far right and the moderate right. We are led to believe that it is the full spectrum of right vs left.
As far as Fox News being “Fair and Balanced ™,” because they allow Democrats to speak, have you ever seen how that plays out? The right wing spokespeople are always given a respectful opportunity to say what they want without being challenged, whereas the spokesperson for the left cannot complete a sentence without O’Reilly and Hannity shouting them down and telling them that they are wrong. Hardly fair and balanced, in my opinion.
Yes, there is such thing as unbiased, however very few news stations offer unbiased reports, places like CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and ABC offer biased reports, however, places like Fox News offer almost completly unbiased news with both sides letting you decide who to vote for or whose right and so on. Hope that helped
I tried to answer a question on YA the other day which specifically asked for an unbiased description of the timeline of events regarding the riots in Xinjian. I had been following this story from reading YA news articles so I tried to answer as best I could without the bias. There were two answers to his question. The first answer was obviously biased in favor of the Han Chinese, and my answer which I thought was much more accurate and truthful because I made extra effort to be unbiased. However, when I re-read my answer the following day, I was shocked that by the subtle ways in which my bias could be evident. It, too, was biased but more in sympathy with the Uighurs.
So, I think that our own thoughts and feelings are subconsciously instilled in how we communicate, and bias is just a by-product of being human. We all just have to keep that in mind when we read or hear stories in the media. Multiple sources of information is probably the best way to arrive at the most accurate account of the truth.
As a reporter or the news media in general, you job is to simply give the news to the public as it is and let them have their own opinions or bias against the information they are given. However, i agree the news is bias! Recently, i watched a documentary in my journalism class about fox being so right wing in their news reporting, it was amazing how they were able to twist things around, but i made me ask myself how do i knbow the makers of this documentary isnb’t feeding me his own bias against fox or right wing in general. i believe wether or not its done on purpose everyone manages to apply their own opinions in the information the pass on.
It is hard to be unbiased. Some things one just can’t be. Especially in law and politics and business. It can go either way.
THERE IS UNBIASED NEWS OUT THERE!!!!!!!!!!!
it called Free Speech TV (FSTV)- Channel 9415 on DISH
They have a great program called Democracy Now which reports the actual news not this censored bologna they have on these days. They have all sorts of documentaries as well that are quite intresting. I’ve just recently started watching it and its GREAT!!
The first step in getting quality news is knowing yourself and being able to admit that you are capable of errors of analysis and perception. There is simply nothing as ridiculous as a person enamored of their own bull****. This first one means that there are a lot of people that will never get quality news.
The second is to identify several decent news sources for each area of interest and start developing a relationship with them. The best way is by examining their initial coverage vs. the well developed coverage that exists later on. This is not that difficult with the availability of online news histories. This will also let you start to get a feel for the bias for the reporters and editors.
Third is becoming a subject matter expert in these areas of interest.
If you really want quality news you need to acquire solid journalistic skills. If you want quality news fed to you, well too bad, there is no free lunch. If you are going to just sit back and take in a news “feed” your going to pay a price because any single feed is almost invariably going to come with some kind of sales pitch or strings attached (look, if I’m a news agency I’m not giving out news for free, this stuff all costs money. I’m going to want some kind of payback in cash or influence.)
Answers knows bias.I mean,just look at the reporter trolls and teenage fangirls they’ve let take over,just so they can get web traffic.
During the Second World War Winston Churchill said that when he wanted to know what was happening in Britain he listened to the French radio………
For the last 50 years I have listened to foreign stations and they usually get to the heart of the matter as they have no axe to grind.
The BBC World Service is also excellent.
The notion of an unbiased source of information is absolutely impossible. Every time someone makes a choice about a story, that choice is informed by a person’s worldview, preconceived ideas, communities of practice, etc. Presenting “multiple sides” of a story does not get rid of bias, as one must always choose which “sides” are credible/interesting/meritorious enough to deserve presentation. Nor does presenting “facts,” because 1) there are always infinitely more facts than could be reported, and 2) it’s essentially impossible to even define what a fact is. Choosing the order of “facts,” choosing the terms which identify those facts (is Person X an “expert,” an “observer,” a “reporter,” a “citizen,” an “unnamed source,” etc.–each of which works on the readers differently), even choosing which events to report on is bias.
The idea that journalism should be unbiased is both old-fashioned and a way for the professional journalism organization to maintain “power” over other sources of information.
I think we should all take a look at this from a slightly different angle.
I agree that it is difficult to find un-biased news. It isn’t, however, about personal viewpoints, prejudices, etc.
The problem exists because the divide between Editorialism and Journalism has been virtually destroyed.
What most of us think of as being “biased” is most probably Editorial Comment being pushed forward as News.
Journalism schools used to teach that when reporting the news the facts need to be focused on. Opinion, the stuff of Editorials, was to be kept out of the real “reporting” of the facts. That was fine until TV became more and more sophisticated. News Channels began to compete at higher and higher levels. News had to be “packaged” so that target audiences would tune in to the personalities that report the news.
It was only a matter of time before Editorial and Opinion became injected into news reports.
This has become extremely prevalent with obama as president. He is a celebrity and not much more, but who cares, right? After all, he makes for good TV.
Take a very close look at Blogs–they are purely Editorial, however, in today’s world they are thought of as legitmate news sources.
Maybe it is almost impossible to differentiate between news and editorial opinion, but if people really stop and read, I believe that they will still be able to tell the difference. I hope so, because a lot is riding on people being able to tell the difference at this point in time.
To joe, FOX does not give unbiased news, u r just another jealous and mad right wing who sees O’reily, Limbaugh, and Hannity as god, if u actually paid attention to fox, u would realize that they r basically a microphone for the rep. party, i agree, there is no unbiased media outlet, accept probably CNN, other than them, the others may tell the truth, accept
FOX, but they r all bias. And wat is up republicans anyway, they keep oppposing just about anyone or anything the country likes, I thought they were trying to become popular again, they must be really dumb, and a bigger reason why they r stupid is the fact that they still let Palin remain in the spotlight.
are the tablids more correct than people let on?
there is no news that is 100% accurate; like what they always say: Its oly that DATE that is 100% accurate!
Yet even BBC news is biased. It is the outsider looking in view. Sometimes they’re right on, and other times, they don’t really get us. Don’t sweat the news. When was the last time you got news you actually did something about? 9/11? Yeah, me too. Just read a weekly and read the headlines on CNN whenever the urge takes you. Big news like MJ’s death, will be discussed ad nauseum at the office and at school, so it’s not like you’ll miss anything.
All media in America is biased (print and most television leaning to the left, talk radio and Fox news to the right) and so I (and almost everyone, whether they admit it or not) prefer to just get my news from the source that is biased in my favor.
I find it interesting that the only people who claim to see a media bias often have a right-handed social bend. The truth is that the media cannot be conservative and be honest. To be conservative means to come into each and every story with a dogmatic approach which further entrenches the status quo. Journalists have to be liberal which means they go into a story without any preconceived disposition.
But if you want to blame anyone for the current state of news reporting…blame yourselves for not demanding more. I worked in TV news for 2 decades and I cannot tell you how many people would call and demand good news and so as an experiment for a week, that’s what we did and we had the lowest ratings ever.
Next week we returned to blood and guts TV and the viewers came back as well.
So the lesson is…if you are going to demand objective journalism, then you had better be prepared to support it.
Bottom line…the media cannot be trusted!
hi whats up
You should be ashamed. Does everyone have an opinion? Should they act upon this opinion? Do those actions include any anyone wants to take?
I hope the answers are Yes, Yes, No. There are journalistic standards; they do exist. Now, they’ve been assaulted, but not gone just yet.
It’s true on the right and left, and it’s not actually from opinions and passion, it’s from sloth. It’s hard to follow standards. It’s hard to be professional.
And, what does “…business students didn’t rank as the worst cheaters. That distinction belonged (ahem) to journalism majors, 27% of whom said they cribbed answers” have to do with anything?
You might as well argue this indicates higher scholastic requirements and therefore higher standards in journalism hiring . There are certainly a lot fewer jobs to go around.
No, I’ll just go back to ‘Shame on you, Mike’.
As Howard Zinn points out in his book ‘Declarations of Independence’, it is nearly impossible to completely remove any human bias from news reporting. Something as small as the inflection of a reporter’s voice can sway a viewer’s opinion.
Another issue is the increasing trend of the blurring of lines between news and commentary. It is a popular practice on FOX, for example, to almost completely disguise certain commentary segments as cut and dry news. As a result, viewers not actively paying attention absorb it as fact. In response to people here who think that FOX is the only network that looks at both sides: Their other favorite technique is to get a straw man from the left that can easily be knocked down or bullied into being quiet or agreeing.
So how does one get around all of this? Well, knowing that there is no one single network or source that is completely free of bias, I seek out news from multiple sources. I watch BBC, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, understanding full and well that there is a bias with each and what that bias is.
However, what is critical for me is to talk about what’s happening. It is invaluable to be able to discuss current events and issues with other people. Another thing I am very fortunate to have is people in my circle of friends who have very different viewpoints and opinions than I do. It’s one thing to talk about things with like-minded people, but real learning occurs when you get in a discussion or even debate with someone who disagrees with you. It’s good for everyone involved, especially if there is a mutual understanding that it is nothing personal at all to simply disagree with each other.
With out reading the previous 93 comments. I would like to say. I stopped watching msnbc years ago. I got so fed up with Katie Curics biased comments, she made me want to puke. I used to watch Channel 44 morning buzz in Tampa, fl., but like MSNBC they had some goof ball guy on there, that also was so biased, I stopped watching them. Because the networks kept their biased, ignorant statements for so long. To this day I refuse to watch them ever again. Katie needs to disappesr, she’s horrible. Kathy Castor in Tampa was honored for getting a runway for The TIA airport. She receives $631,000. From unions in donations or bribes, call them what you want. Ray Sansom got a building for a college in his district. He was paid $100,000. The media rediculed and belittled him. While praising Kathy Castor. That’s not right. I never knew how much corruption was going on in the government until, I started listening and understanding why the two political parties fight so much. Their each trying to get voters. By delivering jobs to either unions or the free so called market. If you always think of that. You are able to read between the lines and see what’s going on.
Sir Rick Meeeeeee:
I beg to differ. Your FOX News is the MOST biased of all of the news sources out there. They do talk about both sides, but when they talk about the liberal side, they’re trashing it. When they’re talking about the conservative side, they’re praising it. They spend more time attacking the liberals than they do the conservatives. The number of terrible things they have said about Obama is horrendous. Throughout the entire presidential campaign, they were rooting for McCain, and EVERYONE could tell.
You’re blinded by the fact that FOX news feeds you all of their crap. You just don’t like to formulate your own opinion, so you dumb-fondedly accept theirs.
You lose.
Not that articles should be totally bias…but I do think that news articles, media, magazines…,etc. should have emotion, because thats what makes us human…Yes I love journalist like Anderson C but the media is depicting life. And life is full of emotion and people. If it weren’t for that then.. like today’s Media Anna Nicole Smith and the Virginia Tech shooting gets the same coverage. So I think media coverage should change, but there needs to be some kind of emotional or objective state for the media…Check out my BLOG PLEASE ” The Objective Media,” it discusses these points and more….
Regardless, it’s still your responsibility to consider all available information (the ole internet is pretty amazing) and using your brain, come to a reasonable consensus which some might term an opinion.
Good luck agreeing on this.
You cannot even come close to arguing that the mainstream media is not overwhelmingly liberal. Fox is about the only conservative station out there. This, in my opinion, is because liberal democrats are often younger people (say under 35), and younger people are almost the exclusive components of the media. Hollywood is obsessed with youth. News reporters often must be young and spry because of the rigorous nature of their job.
News CAN be reported without a bias, but it very rarely is anymore. There are biases on both sides. The trick is to say what happened, exactly, and to avoid as many qualitative adjectives as possible.
The news has become more interested in entertaining the public than informing them, so stories are often violently spun into something catchy and hard-hitting. The networks are all competing with each other, so not only do they spin their stories to make them more entertaining, they take every opportunity to bash their opponents. When there was just one source for news, there was no reason to spin anything.
While I consider myself relatively liberal (more independent than anything), The O’Reilly Factor on Fox seems to me more informative than anything I’ve seen on CNN or NBC or read in the local paper. O’Reilly has his opinions, too, and they obviously affect the way he presents his stories. However, he presents BOTH SIDES of nearly every argument, including quotes and clips to back himself up. He gives you his own opinion on the matter, but you also feel informed enough to take the opposite view. The liberal media does not do this, or it happens very rarely. More often, they isolate a few figures (ALWAYS republicans) and ridicule them to a staggering degree—like jokes about Sarah Palin writing her own book. While this also happens on the republican side, it happens less often and to a much lesser degree.
Anyway. If we say old people are conservative and young people are liberal, it makes sense that the conservative news stations will report in a more traditional reporting style: with as little spin or bias as possible. People who have been around longer remember what the news USED to be like, and that’s how they report.
I don’t believe there is any truly unbiased news out there. There SHOULD be, and there COULD, but news is the media, and we are a media culture. The best I think anyone can do is to get a glimpse of both sides. Look at what liberals say about themselves and conservatives; look at what conservatives say about themselves and liberals. You’ll see which points match up and which seem exaggerated. It takes practice and dedication (unfortunately), but that’s the point we’re at right now.
thank you my friend ali barkat city msila algeria
Like Jack Webb used to say on Dragnet, “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
That’s all I want. I can interpret their meaning without the snark and innuendo.
Fox lost any shred of creditablity when it declared Bush the winner, but I digress… The news/media is about selling emotions (subjectively) and not facts to increase viewership. Walter Cronkite was the best there was and will ever be, he was truly objective.
For news, I hit up Drudge Report first thing every morning. Now, before folks get their panties in a wad and start whining about Matt, HE doesn’t write the stories. He posts links to a wide variety of sources. So, your personal opinions of Mr Drudge (to you) are irrelevant. It’s up to you to read the news and sort out the crap. I’m sure everyone here is *ahem* intelligent enough to do that. But, this is Yahoo, after all.
No there is no such creature. Everyone has their own agenda. FOX News is the worst of the bunch though.
Right winged,deceptive, one-sided reporting. I can’t even call it reporting. It should be called FOX’s opinion.
Most of the media in my country is controlled to a certain extent by the government. People don’t want to believe it, but it is the truth. Everyone whether they are biased personally or professionally is a bit biased whether they intend to be or not. It is all on your perception of the world/etc. As long as you can recognize a bias and pick out and learn from what may be important to you and your life, you are ok. I am not faithful to any news source, in print or on tv. I have been alive long enough to know it is good to catch up once in a while, but you cannot know for sure of something unless you experience it or see it with your own eyes. Not necessisarily a small vid you see on tv that may be reported on and shown in a way that is completely out of context.
With all this great intel. Tell me what should we do?
For if we don’t demand unslanted truth, we will continue to get all this diluted bullsh*t.
Ahh, the process of critical thinking. Bias is everywhere. To get an unbiased opinion and truly get the full story. One must watch different news stations, and read newspapers of different viewpoints and sources. To have debates, with not only like minded people, but with those who oppose you’re ideas. In a matter that is understanding. To be a critical thinker one must understand all sides, view the sources, contemplate, discuss, debate and then finally form an opinion. A long process it is, but very reliable, smart and truly a mind opening experience that all humans who truly want to understand one another must attain.
FOX has been given a very negatively-judged rap for its claim of “fair and balanced” while maintaining a conservative slant, but that is to expected by the far left making the claims. There’s even a story out there claiming that they got the slogan from some typically socialist station parroting the hype and claiming that they were NOT so. Good for FOX. They owned the phrase and even got it to work in their favor. How’s that for turning someone’s ammo back at them… next? The sheep who listen only to the louder majority never stop to ask, “What if they really are?” Even if they were *only* far right, all the time (they’re not, and regularly air opposing points of view), it would scarcely balance the shamelessly liberal opinions that are aired EVERYwhere else– all the time.
I don’t care if a source is biased if what they’re reporting is truth. While no one is free of some sort of personal opinion (bias?) or should expect or claim to be, there used to be such a thing as “just the facts, m’aam” without all the spin. I’d appreciate a return to a bit more pure reporting of basically unbiased facts as they can be seen by all– unvarnished data– with the viewer’s opportunity to interpret them as he will. In general, one feels more secure in turning to such a source on a regular basis; completely neutral facts will gain a reputation, in the long run, of validity and integrity.
Fox news is the most biased of all the stations. I can hardly believe than anyone could mislabel them as the most fair and balanced – oh wait that’s what they call themselves. They give both sides alright, their side and the biggest loser they can find on the other side that while almost always lose the debate. Come on people, haven’t you caught on to this trick yet?
Fox news tells it’s following only what it wants to hear. People whp like what it says call it fair. When those same people watch a truly unbiased report that isn’t something that they want to hear, they call it biased. Fox is guilty of pure pandering.
Well …..we all suffer some bias ….may be good…bad or indifferent ……..I like girls …lets talk about them ……. however, I don’t like mustard ….don’t want it on my burger and don’t particularly care for it in potato salad ……so ….when I listen to a “News” report …….. I like to hear about the girls ……..but ……. …. don’t really care for mustard in my potato salad …….
The rightys have Fox news and talk radio.
The leftys have msnbc, cnn, every other news network, hollywood and tv shows. did i miss anything?
btw, sinic, ur insane.